Talk:Dominion War
FA status Nomination (25 Apr - 16 May 2004, Success) I'd like to suggest the Dominion War article. It has been worked on extensively, and now is a very well informed article. -- Redge 01:47, 25 Apr 2004 (CEST) :Seconded. -- Dan Carlson 18:40, 10 May 2004 (CEST) :: Archiving: Originally tagged as "Featured" by User:MinutiaeMan at 11:02, May 16, 2004. --Alan del Beccio 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Reconfirmation (19 Feb - 21 Mar 2012, Success) Featured Article #1, all the way back in 2004. I think this one has aged pretty well overall, though there is room for more bg info, so long as we aren't just gong to duplicate stuff directly from the episode articles. I'll have some time to further investigation that matter and do a once over on the text for a few minor things in the next few days, so I'm only tentatively supporting this for now. The text of the blurb should also most likely be replaced with a section of the article itself, instead of summarizing the whole thing. - 07:17, February 19, 2012 (UTC) Updated the text of the blurb to be the opening of the article and did a once over on the text of that as well. I think the final paragraph in the "End of the war" section needs some more work, and I'll be getting to that shortly unless someone beats me to it. - 21:32, February 19, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' reconfirmation-I like the readability of a larger event in the Star Trek history...Sure enough, as a non-native English speaker some once-over concerning grammar, syntax and such might be in order, but I consider that minor. The one thing I might suggest is, is it possible to integrate the logos into the belligerents side-bar? (I'd like one side-bar instead of two) Mind you, this is not to be interpreted as "hold", "oppose" or otherwise, just a suggestion, even if not followed upon my support stands...Sennim 22:52, February 24, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' reconfirmation- The article still holds up. Also there has been little additional information added to the canon, so it should continue to age well. It's possible that more detail may need to be added to evoke the feel of a Wikipedia article of similar subject matter. But conciseness has it's place and it is also possible, that it's just as well to leave it as it is. As of the date of this remark I see no problems with it. Rayfire 23:31, March 6, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' reconfirmation. Still seems like an excellent article.--31dot 00:02, March 7, 2012 (UTC) *I'll move my support up from tentative to full. - 09:44, March 7, 2012 (UTC) Review While the overall size of the article has been recently expanded, the "quality", for lack of a better word, has gone down. There's no reason to read beyond the new, overly long summary, and no in-universe section should ever be named "background". I'm also not sure if a Federation/Romulan Cold War was mentioned directly or just implied, and if the latter, how that's different from the status quo for a reoccurring antagonist. I think some of the section quotes were also removed when information was moved around. That said, I have no reason to assume the recent rewrite was done in anything other than good faith, and some of the changes seem fine to me, but this article needs work to live up to the overall quality of past versions and the featured article criteria. - 01:45, February 14, 2016 (UTC) :Support removal, based Archdu3's comments and the fact that there is a lot more interesting background information that could be added to this article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:13, February 20, 2016 (UTC) PNAs Just a few things: "a three-year (2373-2375)" Should that be 2-year, 72 or 76? : 2373, 2374, 2375 - three years. Although the actual chronological timespan is two years (end 2373-end 2375). Oh, and Redge, could you sign your posts, so we know who is commenting? You can do this by adding ~~~ or ~~~~ to the end of your post. -- DarkHorizon 08:45, 20 Jan 2004 (PST) Sorry, slipt my mind. Strange though, I keep reading those numbers as two years. Isn't it simpler to make it two years? -- Redge 08:58, 20 Jan 2004 (PST) :Go ahead, that's what it's there for... :D. The war itself lasted two years, though it spanned three actual years. You could clarify it by saying (late 2373-late 2375) instead. -- DarkHorizon 09:03, 20 Jan 2004 (PST) :: Those headings look fine to me. I just wanted to get a comprehensive article out there. PhilTLL 14:01, 21 Jan 2004 (PST) Dominion War aftermath I have now much more information about the positive and negative effects of the Dominion War: Positive effects * Quote from Glinn Betras: "With the devastation of the Dominion War, our future depends on resources and new colonial worlds". It is likely there will be diplomatic negotiations between Bajor and the Cardassian Union, which is in danger of collapse. This contradicts there will be new relations between the Federation and the Cardassians. From Star Trek: Hidden Frontier Season 4 episode Grave Matters. * It is likely that the Dominion will be allies of the Federation, like the Klingons before it. This is shown in Hidden Frontier Season 6 premiere episode Countermeasures where the USS Defiant and the Jem'Hadar vessels joined the Federation fleet, attacking the Tholian and Breen (which is formerly members of the Dominion since 2375) ships alike. * It is likely there will be the most significant gathering of all powers of the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Quadrants, as explained in the Hidden Frontier Season 6 episode Beachhead. Negative effects * In the wake of the Dominion War, and attacks from the Tholians and the Borg, unrest spreads throughout the Federation colonies. There are two possibilities: the forces of the Devine Celestial Imperium take advantage of this unrest and being to consolidate their position and might, and there is an independence movement that took shape, like the popular uprising among the Cardassians when the Dominion gave away the Cardassian territories to the Breen, and pushed for colonies and member worlds to aim to break away from the Federation and establish independent rule of themselves. * There is an all-out extragalactic invasion by the extragalactic species that tried to destroy all inhabitants of the Milky Way Galaxy: extragalactic parasites, the Kelvans, Species 8472 (but averted), and the Yuuzhan Vong. The Yuuzhan Vong are refugees from a distant galaxy. * There is a possibility that the Federation and its agencies (expect Section 31) falling into private hands, from businessmen and share-holders, to ensure a more, wider distribution of power that had ever been possible before. :Hidden Frontier is completely non-canon, in fact, I don't even think they have any authorization from Paramount, and therefore, have no place on Memory Alpha. Also, Please sign your name using four ~ symbols.Jaz 18:22, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::Also, the Yuuzhan Vong are from the Star Wars extended universe... 12:08, March 8, 2010 (UTC) Dominion War Casualties (from Reference Desk) Hello, Your site is fantastic!! Very professional look and feel! I'm doing some research for a story and since your site is so detailed I thought You might know the answer to this question. I'm looking for total federation casualties from the Dominion War non-canon. It had to be in the tens of millions thinking and least several thousand starships. I'm going through the episodes myself but thought maybe You or someone here might already know or have a good estimate. Thanks, Derek :An official list does not exist of coarse, but of what we know, is probably on the site. Several thousand starships is a bit high, but I'd think a little less then ten million casualties? Taking into account the occupation of Federation planets like Betazed, and Benzar. And while several fleets of starships were shown, there are probably less then 10,000 starships in service at any given time. Going through the episodes though is a good start. -AJHalliwell 18:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::I think the best source for the casualty list would be any episode of DS9. Capt. Sisko really is affected by these reports, and would be a valuable asset to determining the actual losses. --Unknown User. :::There were way more deaths than tens of millions. According to the article, over 800 million civilians died during the Battle of Cardassia alone! -- 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ::::And there were over 50 million dead at the end of World War II! I think a space war might cause just a tiny bit more devastation, don't you think?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) :::::Totally agree on that. We are talking about a War involving thousands of starsystems with either side showing no mercy for the other side. The Federation shot every Jemhadar on sight and so did the Jemhadar when they conquered a planet. I think we are talking about 2 digit billions here. question on that topic the Jem'hadar are created by the Founders as "living weapons" are they truly counted "dead" Cardassian, Human (and all Federation races), Romulan/Remans, Klingon, Breen and the Founders should count, but should the Vorta (clones), and Jem'hadar (living weapons) all of them can come back to life (sorta, Weyoun 9 might be in the gamma quadrant, but with no memory of Weyoun 5-8) -- marc chase :Killing your own clone is still murder, and just because the Founders treat the Jem'Hadar as expendable weapons, it doesn't mean they are or that the Federation looks at them that way. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:28, September 17, 2009 (UTC) Background Information? The Dominion War is the most ambitious storyline that Star Trek has ever had, and it would be great if there was some kind of background info here (ie how it was conceived, why Insurrection and Voyager hardly mentioned it etc). -- Warp One 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC) :Something could be added about the novels that take place in the post-Dominion War period. The Insurrection and Voyager info might lean towards nit-picking, maybe. What does everybody else think? -- When it rains... it pours 16:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC) ::I added some info on Ira Steven Behr and Ronald D. Moore's involvement as well as Rick Berman's attitude to it. If you can think of anything else that can be added post here or just put it straight into the article. -- Tough Little Ship 15:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ::The Dominion War isn't mentioned throughout Voyager because Voyager was in the Delta Quadrant when it began. However, when Voyager contacts Earth via the Hirogen Supspace Network, they learn of it and the destruction of the Maquis at the hands of the Dominion. Also I believe it is mentioned in Insurrection that the reason the Federation has allied itself with the Son'a is because of their losses to the Domionion and Borg. -- Tinadrin Ch'elnor Where was the Enterprise? Where was Picard and the Enterprise during this conflict? Was anything canon-wise ever stated or even in the books? Enterprise-E was in existence before it began.-- Andorian sushi 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC) :I don't recall it being mentioned in canon, but I seem to recall a reference to it in the Dominion War book of "short stories". I think that there's also mention in the "A Time to..." series of books. -- Sulfur 15:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC) ::Well, at one point in time during the DW, the Enterprise was greeting the Evora before winding up in the Briar Patch to save the Ba'ku planet from the Son'a. (see ) --From Andoria with Love 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC) :::I was thinking about it myself to be honest, well since Captain Sisko did say something about a recent Borg attack when Worf did ask if there were any ships going to deploy to DS9 (But hey, I don't get it then, in DS9, the Defiant was never reported to have been severely damaged). So I guess it is save to assume that the Enterprise-E was near the neutral zone for most of the war (I know this doesn't make sense since Enterprise-E is the flagship of the Federation) and when the Romulans joined the Federation, it could be possible the Enterprise-E when to join in the fight, as for the Battle of Cardassia, there is no knowing (although, it would make sense to include some Sovereign class in the final battle). --Anonymous 05:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC) ::::There is no evidence of any kind, to my knowledge, of the Enterprise being on the Romulan border during the Dominion War. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC) :::Non-canon, but for what it's worth: the novel The Battle of Betazed suggests that the Enterprise-E was involved in a mission to liberate Betazed, which had been established as having fallen to the Dominion in . --TommyRaiko 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Non-aligned Powers Were the Borg involved in the war in any way? Did they know the war was going on, or did Starfleet fear a Borg incursion against the weakened Alpha Quadrant while the quadrant's native military forces were busy fighting the Dominion? 11:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC) :I do not recall any mention of the Borg with relation to the Dominion war. Considering the infrequency of Borg incursions, I doubt they were involved in any way. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC) What about the Q or Species 8472? ::They were not involved. ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Date and Casualties I had a couple things I wanted to cover, firstly, when its said late-2375, any idea as to the month? At least, roughly in Human terms? I am not sure if that was ever mentioned, or if the Stardates were known canon wise enough to figure out a month. The second is the casualties, I know around 800 million died on Cardassia, but was there anything said for the total war casualties? --Terran Officer 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) : No such references were given. The only other casualty suggestion was made in where it was projected by the genetically engineered friends of Bashir that if the war went on as they calculated, casualties would be over 900 billion. Things obviously didn't turn out as they predicted, but that would definitely be the ceiling for any estimates. Also, during the Klingon invasion of Septimus III, it was suggested that the entire 11th order, comprised of 500,000 troops, which was stationed there was slaughtered in . --Alan del Beccio 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Removing trivia I am removing the following: * The war seems to resemble the Second World War in many senses. The seemingly successful negotiation between Sisko and Weyoun is in close resemblance to the seemingly successful negotiation between British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Axis leader, Adolf Hitler. Operation Return may resemble either the Battle of Britain or El Alamein for being the first complete allied triumph over the enemy. The First Battle of Chin'Toka seems to resemble the Normandy Invasion, due to the fact that both operations came very close to being a total disaster. The Romulan Empire's late entry into the war clearly resembles the United States' late entry into World War 2, while the final Battle of Cardassia and resulting surrender may represent the Fall of Berlin. This is highly personalized commentary, and doesn't event make sense. Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler by giving things up like the Sudetenland. Sisko didn't give an inch, would not take the mine field down. Neither Sisko nor Weyoun thought the negotiations "successful". During the Battle of Britain, Britain never fell and had to be re-invaded by a massive allied fleet, etc. This doesn't belong in the article. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Military infobox We should use the military infobox more often. Operation Return and the First Battle of Chin'toka are articles which deserve something wonderful like this. I once pressed for something similar. See those page's respective edit histories.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :It's already been added to quite a few of the conflict articles. Feel free to add it to the pages you mentioned.– Cleanse 00:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Cardassian-Romulan I noticed reading about the cardassian-romulan border, where the romulans attacked 15 outposts along the border. But as far i know there isn't a cardassian-romulan border. Atleast thats whats showing on a lot of star trek charts of the alfa-beta quadrant. can anyone shed some light on this? – 09:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC) :First, the Charts are non-canon. Second, space is 3-D, so there's no reason there couldn't be such a border.--31dot 11:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC) ::Not sure what space being 3D has to do with it, but the border can be seen on the canon star chart seen from . In addition, remember that this was in the middle of the war, and at a pretty low point for the Klingon-Federation alliance, when they had just lost Betazed and other key systems deep in friendly territory. Therefore the Cardassian borders extended far beyond their normal points. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) :::The 3-d remark to me seems to deal with the the possibility that the cardassian territories could curve below the federation territories and have a border with romulus there vs. going right through federation space. (but i think your assessment is the correct one cobra) — Morder 18:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Ships Have you noticed that throughout the war, Starfleet used old ship classes like the miranda class, excelsior class, and the ambassador class. They haven't used any of their newer classes like the Intrepid class or the sovereign class. No wonder why they lost alot of ships!– 10:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC) :I don't recall seeing a single Ambassador class ship during the Dominion war, but the Intrepid class was seen (USS Bellerophon (NCC-74705)), even if not in combat. Many other "newer" designs were also seen, from the Nebula class, the , the , the , the , and most of all the , one definitely designed from the ground up for front line combat. Just about the only class we did not see was the Sovereign class, and for all we know there just aren't that many of them and they fought at the major battles we did not see, such as the fall of Betazed, on in defense of Earth from the Breen. From what we saw on screen, we know one thing for certain, Starfleet wasn't holding anything back. Certainly they weren't holding their newest and best back. I would also remind you that during the Vietnam War and beyond, the United States used ships from World War II. Does this mean that we were holding our best aircraft carriers in San Diego? No. --OuroborosCobra talk 11:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC) ::Absolutely, Ouroboros. Even in WWII itself, the British became so desperate for ships that they readily accepted lend-lease agreements with the US in exchange for dozens of antiquated WWI destroyers. Many lives were preventably lost because of the employment of obsolete vessels (which became acute, I think, in East Asia/Indian Ocean). Was there ever a canon explanation for the apparent prevalance of the aforementioned starship classes or did the producers assume it would be self-explanatory? 03:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC) :::Just to be clear, lend-lease was playing chess in more dimensions than just that. The most desperate fighting was in the Atlantic Ocean, where Britain was desperate for supplies. The Germans were hoping to starve Britain out while attriting down their navy. America was still officially neutral (though its destroyers were engaging u-boats semi-secretly in international waters). :::With lend-lease, Britain got enough destroyers that it could get better coverage of its supply convoys under the "lend" half of the agreement. Even obsolete vessels (and you're right, they were) helped screen the vital convoys. In exchange, the US got control of British bases in the Caribbean and in Asia-- which freed the British navy from the need to defend their far-flung empire and allowed them to concentrate their forces. That's the "lease" half. AND both actions drew (heavily anti-war) America closer to openly siding with the allies both directly and by making it harder for the Axis to avoid attacking Americans (or their "leased" bases-- that were STILL helping the British but were now "American" and so officially neutral and so off limits to attack). Remember, Britain was alone against the Axis powers, and they were allied with the Soviets at the time. Apart from isolationist America, it was Britain vs. the world. ::: The specific intrigue and politics were quite different, but the multidimensional aspect of WW2 vs the Dominion War was very similar. The only difference was the endgame: WW2 ended with total surrender of the Axis powers. The old Westphalian system wars ended based on the position of the pieces on the chessboard. While the Dominion War plot was totally against Gene Roddenberry's vision, its end was classic Star Trek: a paper treaty agreed to based on a humanitarian gesture and enforced by both sides' sense of legalism and fair play. 03:58, June 7, 2014 (UTC) : Considering that the Federation seemed to be even more short of trained personnel than ships through most of the war, there's a possible alternative explanation. TNG-era ships were primarily explorer, diplomatic, and research vessels rather than ships of war. Starfleet repeatedly and emphatically denied that it was a military at all. So now stick them in a war. Of course, they really are a military. At the very least they have a military's mission. But their ships still aren't dedicated combat vessels. : In that context, modernizing TOS-era ships might make sense. Sure, they're in mothballs and are obsolete... but at least they're from an era when Starfleet was building dedicated combat vessels. Upgrading a man of war might be more effective than "side-grading" a converted multirole vessel. Hence the use of obsolete classes like the Miranda. : What I find interesting is that the Galaxy class vessels mostly went into battle with their saucer sections still attached. These were ships that were packed with families, entertainment, research labs, etc. The original idea was to use the engineering section in a fight while the vulnerable non-combatants were left out of the way (that's how it was used in Farpoint). In practice, separation reduced your firepower and left a vulnerable, non-Warp vessel nearby. Even in fleet actions, you'd keep it on board for the extra weaponry. The design implies that Starfleet was struggling with the rhetoric of being a peaceful exploration department with the reality that they were a military force and that the ships you need for one mission are NOT the ones you want for the other. Hence, eventually, the Defiant. 14:05, June 7, 2014 (UTC) Ship Listing Seriously, is this even necessary? For example, in the Operation Return infobox, there is a listing of 627 starships, and in the same box, it gives a list of how many ships of different classes were utilised. Why is this even required? It clutters the infobox, and a list could easily be added in a separate article. (RockDrummerQ 16:14, September 12, 2009 (UTC)) :I was wondering where the number of Dominion ships was generated from. Over 30,000? That seems a bit much seeing as we never saw a federation fleet numbering more then approx. 600 ships. and that was comprised of ships from 3 seperate fleets. The 7th fleet was 114 ships. So assuming that each fleet is somewhere from 100-150 ships and say there are approxamately 10 different federation fleets. That means there can only be somewhere between 1,000-1,500 federation ships in service at any given time. Now We also need to assume that the Klingons have more ships as they are a warrior race. Assume they have 5 times the Federation. That's only 5,000 to 7,500 ships. So Before the Romulans even entered the war the combined Federation/Klingon fleets were still outnumbered by almost 4:1. With those numbers they should have easily been able to wipe out Federation forces. :Now obviously all these numbers are totally approximated. But I don't know anywhere where hard statistics of relative fleet strength are listed. If anyone does please let me know, OR if you know where this 30,000 ship figure came from I'd love to know. ::The Dominion number was generated from a Season 7 episode, I can never remember its name for the life of me, but Martok stated he was bringing 1,500 ships to the front lines, to which the Romulan Ambassador remarked "You're still outnumbered 20 to 1". 1,500 x 20 = 30,000. The 7th fleet was far larger than just 114 ships, because it was stated it was at half strength much later on in the war. 114 could be all the ships that particular fleet was able to mobilise in time. As for the infobox comment, which was my point to begin with, not to speculate on fleet sizes, why is it necessary to include these? ::The infobox for Operation Return, for example, lists as many starships as was seen on screen. Why is it necessary to clutter the infobox with this information? How do the viewers know the ships they are seeing aren't the same ships they saw before in a previous scene? To be honest, its pure speculation at how many ships of a certain class were involved, and it isn't needed. Just a solid number would be nice. ( 12:59, May 30, 2011 (UTC)) "Generic Official Information" from backstage stated that just before the Dominion War Started, the Federation had almost 8,000 ships in operation. Now with territory the size of the Federation, they could not put anywhere near that many on the front lines and still protect their interests elsewhere. I'm sure around 1/3 to 1/2 of the fleet was used in the war, and maybe over half of all ships operated during the war were lost. Opening quotes Each article should only have one opening quote (if any), so I have moved all the quotes at the top of the article into a "Memorable quotes" section. I don't really mind which one of the three is used (or another quote entirely), but I thought it probably be best if we have some agreement on talk first. – Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:01, July 28, 2010 (UTC) :It's not a strong preference, but if I had to choose one I'd probably choose the exchange between Odo and the Female Changeling, as it suggests the attitudes of both sides in the war. —Josiah Rowe 01:42, July 28, 2010 (UTC) Done.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:32, August 11, 2010 (UTC) Causes of war Maybe, this article needs explanations of causes of war? At least, explained link to the Dominion Philosophy. I cann`t write it myself, because causes really remains unclear to me. 18:40, August 1, 2010 (UTC) Death count The first paragraph mentions the death count was 'nearly one billion life forms'. While the number seems somewhat reasonable, where did the figure come from? – Fadm tyler 20:51, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :Nowhere, there is non canon information to base it on. On screen it is mentioned 800 million Cardassian civilians died at Cardassia, and 7 million soldiers were mentioned dead by Legate Damar, but to claim that the war claimed 1 billion seems way too speculative. Doesn't take into account the fact that the Federation and the Klingons were being annihilated before the Romulans entry into the war, doesn't take into account the massive losses the Jem'Hadar themselves sustained, and those, while negligable, losses of the Breen. If anything the casualties would be in double figure billions for a war of this scale. ( 01:49, October 3, 2010 (UTC)) Removing "Billions" estimate in introduction I removed the line stating that casualties were estimated to be in the billions due to it being speculation, but it was added again despite my putting clear reasons. So lets put it to a vote, keep or remove the billions estimate? --Nero210 20:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :The figure should be somewhere- perhaps not in the introduction if we only have an estimate of one battle or two. If we did have it there we could put "minimum of 807 million" or something similar.--31dot 20:56, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :: Looks like the issue was brought up by anon user above as well. And he/she is right. On screen it is mentioned 800 million Cardassian civilians died at Cardassia, but this does not even include the Federation (which is dozens of worlds) and the Klingon losses (over 2 years!!) as well as that of the Romulans upon entering the war. It also doesnt take into account the massive losses the Jem'Hadar themselves sustained, and that of the Breen. So saying casualties were estimated to be in the billions (or above one billion), is an accurate reflection of what happened. It is common sense really. It is not far fetched speculation and does give the casual reader a ball-park estimate of the extent to this war. It essentially informs them about the order of magnitude of the Dominion War. – Distantlycharmed 21:03, October 24, 2010 (UTC) Alright DC I'm going to make this short and sweet: Memory Alpha does not allow speculation. There is no CANON ESTIMATE for a final death toll in the Dominion War, making your line speculation. Yes, it probably was estimated to be in the billions, but tell me which episode it is where a character said "we estimate the death toll to be in the billions" after the war ended. Reasonable speculation is still speculation at the end of the day. --Nero210 21:27, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::It is called common sense. When in Enterprise (2001), they were showing pictures of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in a time stream, no one came right out and said "this is Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton" - yet we gave each one of them an MA entry, stating who they were. Similarly, using common sense to give readers an idea about the magnitude of the war is not invalid and it is not speculation. Now had i said, "the death toll was 2 billion", that would be wrong - because no one knows the exact figure. But the sentence does not state that, it merely states an order of magnitude which is supported by information presented in canon. – Distantlycharmed 22:20, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :Apples and oranges. There, we have pictures. Here, we only have estimates from portions of the war.--31dot 22:23, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::The common denominator though is that in both cases we use common sense to arrive at a conclusion as how to best and most accurately represent information on MA. May I refer you to this. – Distantlycharmed 23:16, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :And when you show me a picture of billions of dead from canon, I'll be the first to add it to the article. We don't have that- we only have estimates from one battle (800 million) and a statement of one side's military losses up to a certain point(7 million Cardies according to Damar) That's not enough to extrapolate an estimate of the entire war. Very different than pictures of recognizable public figures.--31dot 23:21, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::I disagree and I see you also did either not read the link I mentioned above nor understood it. So let me reprint here for you: "it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." It concludes by stating that "The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter." The wording is very carefully formulated to not specify any numbers - thus not violating canon. You have personally no idea if they really meant Bill Clinton, but you drew a conclusion based on common sense. Something you are asking me not to do. ::Let me reiterate, because I feel like i am talking to a bulkhead: When one war party alone counts 807 million casualties, how is it not common sense to say that the casualties in this two year war involving dozens of worlds and militaries is estimated to be in the billions or over one billion. How is that not "improving the encyclopedia" as the policy states (especially when carefully worded). How is that violating canon or policy? Speaking of pointless discussions with bulkheads: maybe we can reach some sort of compromise, as to not drag this on forever, pending on what others have to say. Something like "Hundreds of millions of lives were lost" - although I truly believe that to be inaccurate and plain wrong given the extent of this war. – Distantlycharmed 00:35, October 25, 2010 (UTC) DC no offense but you don't need to write two paragraph long rants when you don't get your way. The cold hard fact is that you're adding speculation to this article, which could ultimately cost it its featured status should others view this as an invitation to add more speculation. We should just leave the article as it was before you put in the "billions" estimate. The article was fine as it was, and having the just "catastrophic deathtoll for all powers involved" line addresses your "common sense" approach. --Nero210 01:05, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :I saw your link and you know perfectly well that I am aware of it. A picture of Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton and requires no leaps of common sense or guesswork to know that. Estimating the death toll of an entire war based on two or three death figures is simply inaccurate. This is not a matter of being wrapped up in rules, or of common sense, but of facts. Here, we don't have enough facts to estimate a death toll beyond the original statement of it being high.--31dot 01:14, October 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Excuse me Nero, before we do any reverts, can we wait until we hear from more than just one person? – Distantlycharmed 02:22, October 25, 2010 (UTC) Well DC its doubtful anyone else is going to chime in, otherwise they likely would have by now. 31Dot (an admin by the way) seems to be on the same page as I do so maybe we should put this issue to bed and be done with it? --Nero210 03:34, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :: I dont think you understand how this works. You bring an issue to talk page, wait a few days, sometimes even a week, or however long it takes, see what people say and then come to a decision. Like I said, I am more than willing to acquiesce to consensus. The way it doesnt work is as soon as you got one person agreeing with you, it's decided. Plus, unlike you, I am not here to "win" any wars or battles (pun not intended); I care about making this encyclopedia as comprehensive and informative as possible rather than wasting my time beating people over the head with rigid application of rules or being driven by the "who wins" mentality. – Distantlycharmed 06:44, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :::If that floats your boat: I'm in favor of removal of any concrete number without evidence, too. Not only is it correct to point out that we only know about 807 million dead (less than one billion, so not "billions") - you yourself stated that there were dozens of worlds involved, so we can't even be sure that "billions" doesn't grossly underestimate the number. What it boils down to is that we don't even know enough to estimate the "order of magnitude" without a too big margin of error - so we shouldn't! -- Cid Highwind 08:50, October 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::I seem to remember many numbers being given throughout the war seasons for casualties, so it might be worth it to see if these numbers add up. This could all be added in a bg note, not the article, if that's an issue. I don't think there should be any number given in the opening paragraph if we don't have a solid, total number to give. - 21:47, October 25, 2010 (UTC) That's true, and most of them actually came from before the war as well and they all varied. A background note seems appropriate if an estimated death toll is really a necessity for some people. --Nero210 21:51, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :::::Why not mention simply, that the casualties were extremely high, something like "the death toll within the Dominion War is exceptionally high, with over eight hundred million Cardassians alone dying in the conflict" or something else worded along that sense? This gives a sense that an extreme high amount of people died, while stating a number, making perhaps, both sides of the argument happy (and leaving open to interpenetration how high it could be)--Terran Officer 22:02, October 25, 2010 (UTC) The introduction already mentions a "catastrophic death toll for all parties involved," as well as the "Aftermath" section. We also have the Cardassian casualties in the sidebar, so that is covered :) -- 22:31, October 25, 2010 (UTC) "daggers" Has it been standard to put "daggers" in the article to (I presume) indicate in the sidebar who is dead? I've just never seen it before, and it seems like we are really loading up the sidebars with info that could easily be found either within the article or at the characters' articles.--31dot 21:23, November 5, 2010 (UTC) :The dagger use appears to not be consistent throughout the site. I've seen a lot of battle articles with daggers indicating the dead commanders and others without them, so I'm not sure what's going on with them. If they're not appropriate here I could care less if they're removed, I just thought they added some completion to the sidebar. --Nero210 01:33, November 6, 2010 (UTC) Paradise Lost I am curious, should the events of the episode be put in this page. A federation coop is a big deal, and it was a two part episode. I think only 1-2 sentences would do. We also all of the other wars and potential wars the federation got into on this page. Oldag07 14:12, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :That's not really part of the Dominion War itself. See Dominion cold war for the events leading up to the conflict, including those in .–Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:38, March 9, 2011 (UTC) update I removed some parts that I thought were kind of biased towards the Feds. "Dominion intentions were clear" "the Federation was forced to act". Instead I said things like "Starfleet felt an attack was imminent. They decided they had to act." Also I removed a part about breeding Alpha Quadrant Jem'hadar removed the need for Gamma Quadrant reinforcements. Weyoun still wanted to have those reinforcements. The AQ compensated for the lack of reinforcements, but did not completely eliminate the need for them. I also added a few details about various battles. Prelude Rewrite I felt that the prelude section was very poorly written and covered too much detail that was covered in the Dominion cold war article. Therefore, I've rewritten the section so the information is better summarized. -- 20:17, August 27, 2011 (UTC) Sona I noticed the Sona are listed against the Federation on the side of the Dominion. I disagree with the this placement. Although they were enemies of the Federation, they were not involved with the Dominion. If we include the Sona for the sheer fact that there was conflict between the two during the Dominion War, then logic dictates that every enemy the Federation faced during the Dominion War should be included to, but that doesn't make sense as they were not actively fighting for the Dominion War. I move to have the Sona removed from the listing of forces fighting the Federation on the side of the Dominion. 20:33, March 6, 2013 (UTC) :There was an offhand comment about them fighting with the Dominion during Insurrection. -- sulfur (talk) 21:29, March 6, 2013 (UTC) ::Strong oppose; as Sulfur said, they were mentioned on the side of the Dominion in Insurrection. I think there was also a DS9 episode where the Sona were mentioned by Damar and/or Weyoun(one of them questioned why they couldn't protect a facility, I think based on my poor memory). 31dot (talk) 02:23, March 7, 2013 (UTC) In the DS9 episode Penumbra (7x17) there is mention of the Dominion breaking off pursuit of the Defiant to go and defend the Sona's Ketracel White facility on Devos II. That, in addition to the mention of the Sona making White for the Dominion that occurs in the TNG movie Insurrection puts the Sona strongly in the Dominion camp, in my opinion. I see it as being comparable to the Romulans supplying the Duras sisters with supplies during the Klingon Civil War, or the way the Bajorans feel about the Valerians supplying weapons grade dolamide to the Cardassians during the Occupation of Bajor. That coupled with the Dominion's defense of Devos II would seem to seal the deal. Just as Bajor was not an official part of the Federation during the war the Federation certainly worked to defend them and most certainly considered them allies. --Shredder134 (talk) 17:11, March 7, 2013 (UTC) 2016 rewrite This article has recently been completely revamped, although it is a Featured Article. This is ofc no barrier to tweaks and improvements, but for example the opening paragraph is now already a pretty detailed timeline of the war as opposed to before. I personally do not like this, as reading the article itself is now quite repetitive, but I'd like other editors opinion on this. Kennelly (talk) 15:32, February 11, 2016 (UTC) :I agree that the opening paragraph is overly detailed. A much more concise summary of the war can be achieved. Parts of the rewrite are also overly speculative and need fixing. -- UncertainError (talk) 06:53, March 15, 2017 (UTC) Ferengi I don't think the Ferengi should be removed from the infobox; Zek (the leader of the Ferengi government) authorized Quark to rescue Ishka from the Dominion( )- an armed action against the Dominion. 31dot (talk) 09:20, March 15, 2017 (UTC) :But as a personal matter because of their relationships to Ishka, not as part of the war. In and , the Ferengi are stated not to be participating. Putting them in the infobox would be misleading. -- UncertainError (talk) 16:43, March 15, 2017 (UTC) It is possible to enter and leave a conflict at different times than the conflict as a whole began and ended. Russia left WWI early and the US entered late. 31dot (talk) 19:53, March 15, 2017 (UTC) :Quark is not a member of the Ferengi military, nor did Zek authorize the use of any Ferengi military assets. A few people (all civilians except Nog) enacting their own private plan (Zek doesn't actually order an armed action -- he just offers a reward) doesn't make for a government joining a war. I remain strongly opposed to this notion. -- UncertainError (talk) 20:10, March 15, 2017 (UTC) Quark stated that "The Nagus wants me to rescue her". He didn't just offer a reward to anyone interested; besides, that's how the Ferengi operate in most of their affairs, unlike other governments. The Nagus also doesn't operate in the same way as say, the President of the Federation, Ferengi usually go out of their way to follow his instructions. 31dot (talk) 20:43, March 15, 2017 (UTC) :The Ferengi clearly do have a concept of what fighting a war means, Quark's talked about it more than once, and this wasn't it. Anyway I've said enough. Maybe somebody else will weigh in. -- UncertainError (talk) 20:59, March 15, 2017 (UTC) ::One more issue with the "armed action" characterization is that it only turned violent because they bungled what was supposed to be just a prisoner swap. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:24, March 16, 2017 (UTC)